Higher-Risk Driver: MADD defines the
“higher-risk driver” as 1) Repeat offenders convicted (conviction is
defined as receiving a court-imposed sanction) of a second
driving-under-the-influence offense within a 5- year period; 2) High BAC
offenders convicted of a driving-under-the-influence offense with a BAC of
.15% or higher; and/or 3) Driving-while-suspended (DWS) where the
suspension was the result of a conviction for driving under the influence.

THE
PROBLEM

Repeat Offenders:

About one-third of all drivers
arrested or convicted of driving under the influence are repeat offenders.
These drivers are 40% more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than
those without prior DUIs.1

High-BAC Offenders:

58% of alcohol-related traffic
fatalities in 2001 involved drivers with a BAC of .15% and above.2
These drivers are at least 382 times more likely to be involved in a fatal
crash than a non-drinking driver.17

During a typical weekend
night, 1% of drivers will have a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .15
or higher.13

32% of suspended second-time
offenders and 61% of suspended third-time offenders received violations or
were involved in crashes during their suspensions.3

Generally, unlicensed drivers
are 4.9 times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than properly
licensed drivers.16

Drivers Who Refuse a
BAC Test:

Depending on the state, 3% to
59% of those under suspicion for DUI/DWI refused to take a BAC test.15

Not surprisingly, those states
that did not sanction those who refuse the test more than those who take
the test had higher refusal rates. Also, offenders who refuse the test
tend to have higher recidivism rates and more previous offenses.

Studies show that license revocation laws
can decrease fatal late-night crashes by 9%.6

Interlock systems have reduced repeat DWI
offenses among convicted drinking drivers in Maryland7,
California8
and other states9,10
by 65% to 90%.

License suspension was effective in reducing
DWI offenses among convicted drinking drivers in Ohio4.
After two years, there were lower rates of moving violations and
crashes compared with DUI offenders convicted before the law went into
effect and this reduction significantly reduced alcohol-related
fatalities.

Vehicle impoundment has reduced DWI offenses
among convicted drinking drivers. First-time offenders who had their
vehicles impounded had 25% fewer crashes and repeat offenders had 38%
fewer crashes than similar offenders who had access to their vehicles
in California.5

Restitution Sanctions:

Require compensation to the community through
fines, mandatory incarceration and financial restitution to crash
victims.

Community service has
little or no impact on reducing recidivism. However, some judges use
creative sentencing and restitution sanctions to create more meaning
from sanctions.

Fines and court fees can be used to offset
the costs of law enforcement efforts to crack down on drunk drivers
and to pay the cost of treatment programs. They can also fund special
minimum-security facilities for DUI offenders.